Science does not accommodate her desire for magic to be real, and so science is insufficient, without significant revision by her's truly.

The god-dess looks down her snow-crested nose and laughs at men for aspiring to make her obsolete.

(February 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How, precisely, do you reckon that science or scientists determined that there was something beyond the "veil", do they have scientific reasons or something else? If they have a scientific explanation for why they suggest that something is beyond that veil then it sounds like it's still within the domain of science Abra, or.....you're misinformed.

I'm not misinformed. You're just making intuitive assumptions that don't necessarily hold true.

You say that if science has scientific reason for something being beyond the 'veil' of quantum mechanics this should automatically make whatever is beyond that veil within the reach of science. But that doesn't automatically follow at all.

But then again, I supposed that can depend on what you mean by 'science'.

One problem is that if you use the word 'science' to simply mean any "form of inquiry that it takes to move forward" - then sure. By that definition anything and everything can potentially be within the realm of "science".

The reason being that you would simply keep changing "The Scientific Method" of inquiry to match the new challenges. In other words, you'd have to keep changing what we even mean by "Science".

Currently (and for all of human history), science has been a means of experiment and observation based on a very strict mathematical formalism that quantifies the world in terms of very well defined "units". In other words, the "oneness" of things, or out ability to break things down into units of 'oneness' is essential for mathematics to work. And our current science is entirely dependent upon this type of mathematics.

I'm not saying that what lies beyond the quantum veil may be permanently out of the reach of human comprehension. What I'm saying is that it's clearly beyond the reach of science as we have always 'defined it' to be.

How do we know that there are things beyond the quantum veil. Well, as I've already said, ask anyone who studies quantum information. There are very strong reasons why scientists believe that such quantum information exists.

@ apophenia - I'll read the article you've posted as soon as I can. However I see that the article you've pointed to is from 1979. There have been many breakthroughs since 1979, especially in the field of quantum information. So that article is probably quite naive.

I'll read it anyway and get back to you.

Are they strong scientific reasons? If so, how did they end up with strong scientific reasons regarding something that is not the domain of science? If not, I don't give a shit what anyone believes....no matter how many PHD's they have attached. Chip could supply you with a list of apologists with PHD's as well.

(February 26, 2012 at 10:34 am)Epimethean Wrote: A bit of reading:

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

No religion is bad but by the actions of its adherents. They are all fictions, so it devolves to the interpretations of said fictions by their respective audiences to "define" the religion for the rest of the world.

This article is kind of a revelation to me. I wasn't aware of any particular "Buddhist wars" throughout history but I have suspected that there were struggles, battles, uprisings, protests and such carried out by Buddhists, as with all the major religions. I think there were some important points made in the article that minimize the blame on Buddhism itself. For instance

Quote:Murder, on the other hand, is clearly condemned. As the Buddha states in the Brahma Net Sutra: "If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community."

This can be juxtaposed to the Bible and Koran for example, which both repeatedly encourage murder in the name of God and Allah.

Quote:Thus, Japanese militarism blended Buddhist doctrine with the imperial sauce, reducing it to its simplest expression, to bend it to official propaganda. The Buddhist theory of selflessness served, for instance, to justify giving one's life for the Emperor

Well, this is one of the best things that all governments (including the U.S.) have been very good at: War Propaganda. Whatever gets the young men to fight and die for nationalism in the name of patriotism to serve their country. Religion is always the first psychological ideology manipulated. But this does not mean atheists are totally immune from propaganda by any means! Everyone is a target and has vulnerabilities in perception. (Cultural conditioning)

Quote:Thus, there have been, and will again be, "Buddhist wars," and Buddhism's superiority in this regard is entirely relative. Yet, on the whole, it remains more tolerant than the other great religions and ideologies—which is no small matter, at a moment when the world seems threatened once more by fundamentalisms. In every age, the Buddhist clergy's will to power has been balanced by the ideal of compassion. But Buddhist doctrine, in order not to remain a dead letter, must take account of the violence inherent in the human heart, in society, and in Buddhism itself.

Here the author mentions that Buddhism is the most tolerant of religions but I don't see where he gets off saying in the beginning of the paragraph that there have been and will again be, "Buddhist wars". How does he know for sure there will be more and why does he put quotation marks on "Buddhist Wars". Is it because it is not strictly and exactly a "buddhist war" in the first place? And Lastly at the end, he states..."must take account of the violence inherent in the human heart, in society, and in Buddhism itself." I agree with human heart and society, to an extent, but in Buddhism itself???? I don't see it. The "angry" gods he mentions in the article are actually supposed to represent negative emotions,selfish desires and the ego psyche, not "demons" as a reality or as Christianity views demons.

So there has been violence in Asia ever since the life of Buddha (approx. 500 B.C.). Is it all Buddha's fault? Obviously not. Is it a direct result of his teachings? Doubt it. Is it common for buddhists to be militant? I don't think so. But could the great majority of so-called "Buddhist Wars" been fought for land and territory, natural resources, monetary and political reasons? Probably so.

All of your objections could be made by a person of any other faith (including abrahamic faiths, which you managed to smear while defending your own..not that your comments weren't accurate, lets not forget all the fluffy stuff in the abrahamic scriptures too though eh?).

There is no such thing as buddhism without the buddhists. What they do is what buddhism does B. That they did these things in the name of buddhism, from time to time (and yes, I understand that you would mention here that buddhism was being used, exploited, again- also a common christian argument) cannot be waved away as though buddhism had nothing to do with it. Unless you're willing to do the same for christians.

(February 28, 2012 at 1:02 am)Rhythm Wrote: All of your objections could be made by a person of any other faith (including abrahamic faiths, which you managed to smear while defending your own..not that your comments weren't accurate, lets not forget all the fluffy stuff in the abrahamic scriptures too though eh?).

There is no such thing as buddhism without the buddhists. What they do is what buddhism does B. That they did these things in the name of buddhism, from time to time (and yes, I understand that you would mention here that buddhism was being used, exploited, again- also a common christian argument) cannot be waved away as though buddhism had nothing to do with it. Unless you're willing to do the same for christians.

I see basically what you mean by judging the religion by it's follower's actions. I agree that includes all the bad things as well as all the good things done. Yet as far as the Dharma teachings are concerned in writing, especially contrasted to Abrahamic writings, I don't think the violence perpetrated by wayward buddhists is justified or supported in any rational way by the "law" or doctrine. The difference with the Bible and the Koran though is that they DO justify and support all kinds of torture and violence against adulterers and infidels and such. So therfore the brainwashing and indoctrination of violence is MUCH easier to institutionalize in these religions compared to Buddhism. So granted, some buddhists are "bad guys" disguised as good guys, but they have to be aware they are going against every tenet of their religion. Yet many Christians actually believe they are doing good when they do evil, intolerant damage to others who don't accept Jesus as their savior.

So, I think Buddhism at least has pure and good intentions first and foremost through and throughout. I honestly do. Yet unfortunatelty abuse and corruption does exist in cases as in almost anything that involves large groups of people. I don't know if I can say the same about the Abrahamic religions having pure intentions first and foremost. "Buddhist wars" pale in comparison to the devastation of Christian crusades, jihads and Western global imperialism by far.

They don't seem to have felt that they were wayward Bgood, flirting with a buddhist version of the true scot now?

(February 28, 2012 at 1:49 am)Rhythm Wrote: They don't seem to have felt that they were wayward Bgood, flirting with a buddhist version of the true scot now?

Well, we don't know the full implications and circumstances of all these battles. I'm sure there is alot of relativism and purpose in each side's view. The intricate details and feelings of an ancient samarai warrior are probably beyond our reach. Who knows who feels wayward or not in one's heart of hearts. This is too varied and subjective to generalize for sure. But according to the fundamental teachings that I am aware of, it denounces all violence. Maybe both warring sides felt justified in defending their families and homelands. Perhaps many buddhists did not have any other options. I do not know. I can't say for sure but the Dharma is pretty cut and dry, leaving very little room for misinterpretation by the genuine student. But I think buddhism has been a greater source of wisdom, comfort and guidance through the ages rather than a social vechicle for persecution and warfare, as Christianity was.

It's strange then, that the histories of the two religions seem to have so many parallels, don't you think? I would also counter that more people believe that they have received wisdom, comfort, and guidance from christianity than buddhism. I don't think this means that they have, but I don't think people receive those things from buddhism either. I'd credit an altogether different source in both cases. I understand that you don't see any darkness when you look at buddhism (but I do), and I would suggest that it may have more to do with you being a good person than buddhism being a "good religion". That others have identified, or exploited, or developed evils from the fertile soil of faith (including your own) is impossible to ignore. It seems from here that it is obviously there, just not in you. The only explanation you can offer is that they were wayward, it is otherwise unthinkable to you. This is a very common reaction when you present the faithful with a picture of their faith that does not align with their own personal interpretations.

Let me ask you this, if buddhism were all these things you feel that it is, then exactly how did these buddhists go so terribly awry? Why didn't their buddhism shield them from these things? If buddhism were somehow superior to christianity..then how is it that these buddhists ended up behaving in exactly the same manner as christians?

(I notice you haven't touched my mention of Tibet, The Dalai Lama, and his feudal theocracy. Is it that you don't see any evil in this, or that you just can't believe that this was the case? Was this theocracy somehow not a product of buddhism? Just how holy is His Holiness?)